Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Paul E. Swires, No. B-212572.
James Bukac, for petitioner.
Michael D. Alsher, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail, Barry and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 368]
This appeal results from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), affirming a decision of the referee which denied unemployment benefits to petitioner, Paul E. Swires.
Petitioner had been employed as a tractor-trailer driver by Klapec Trucking Co., which was owned and
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 369]
operated by J. Bernard Klapec. During his employ with Klapec, petitioner and another employee, Charles T. Brant, had driven as a team.
On July 16, 1982, petitioner and Brant had just completed a trip which had taken them from Oil City, the home office of Klapec Trucking, to California and back. They arrived at the Oil City plant of Electralloy at 4:30 p.m. on the Friday afternoon with a full load. Petitioner called Robert Stahlman, a dispatcher for Klapec Trucking, for instructions. Stahlman informed petitioner that Electralloy had a load which had to be delivered to Dayton, Ohio, by the following Monday. Since the Electralloy plant was not open on the weekend, Stahlman told petitioner it would be necessary to unload the truck's shipment which was destined for Electralloy, reload the shipment for Dayton and then return the truck to Klapec Trucking where it would be ready for the Monday morning trip to Ohio. Petitioner relayed the instructions to Brant, who then called the dispatcher and informed him that the two drivers were too tired and hungry to complete the task. Stahlman then put Klapec on the telephone and the owner told Brant to either follow the insructions or be discharged.
Brant returned to the truck; the pair returned the truck to the yard of Klapec Trucking without unloading it. Klapec then informed Brant that he was fired. When petitioner informed Klapec that he had no knowledge of what Brant was doing, Klapec told petitioner that he had not been discharged and that he should report to work on Monday.
Petitioner returned to work on Monday morning and was instructed to deliver a load to Buffalo, New York. Klapec told petitioner he could either drive alone or have another driver assigned to work as petitioner's ...